Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excluding all others, yes it's partial bias.
Not a fan of his ' reasoning'. Nominate based on constitutional law experience. Not whether the person's heritage is the key factor.
I'd respect a variety of choices based on knowledge and court conduct.
That’s my thought as well. He said “the court should look like the country”. Why the hell why? I want judges who know the constitution backwards and forwards with the intelligence to interpret it the way it was meant at the beginning.
He better find an illegal immigrant with a law degree if he wants the court to look like the country. The dumbest statement I’ve ever heard from a President.
How is this ok? I can understand the President having his own intentions for his own reasons…but he’s already announced it! Is this what America is supposed to be about?
I actually feel bad for whoever the nominee will be. Because she could have an absolutely impressive list of achievements and qualifications, but everyone will think of her as “she’s there because she’s a black woman.”
Sort of like Kamala Harris. I can’t stand her, but at the same time, nobody really ever talks about her background or accomplishments (not that they are very impressive to begin with); she’s always thought of as “she’s the person who checked boxes for race and gender” which IS sad.
But hey, overt racism is okay in today’s Democrat party, just as long as it’s the “right” kind of racism.
I actually feel bad for whoever the nominee will be. Because she could have an absolutely impressive list of achievements and qualifications, but everyone will think of her as “she’s there because she’s a black woman.”
Sort of like Kamala Harris. I can’t stand her, but at the same time, nobody really ever talks about her background or accomplishments (not that they are very impressive to begin with); she’s always thought of as “she’s the person who checked boxes for race and gender” which IS sad.
But hey, overt racism is okay in today’s Democrat party, just as long as it’s the “right” kind of racism.
If you look at gmagoo’s comment..vindictive and childish. That’s the reasoning they use at the top I’m afraid.
Because in order to choose someone by their race and gender is by definition denying others due to their race and gender. Which is the definition of racism.
Had blowhard joe kept his yap shut about putting a black woman on the Court and just done it, he might have gotten away with it. But instead he specifically said what he would do, which is racist and discriminatory.
As has been said, that has worked out so well for VP (sarcasm in case it goes over some heads).
He's still going to get away with it, just with a little more complaining by the right, giving a bigger opening for the MSM to portray them as being racist for complaining about Biden's racism. This pick is not going to change the makeup of the court. Yes it's a double standard in action yet again but this is not a hill to die on.
So that makes Coney's appointment unconstitutional?
“It will be a woman. A very talented, very brilliant woman who I haven’t chosen yet, but we have a number of women on the list,” the president promised cheering supporters at an evening rally in Fayetteville, NC. https://nypost.com/2020/09/19/trump-...g-within-days/
I actually feel bad for whoever the nominee will be. Because she could have an absolutely impressive list of achievements and qualifications, but everyone will think of her as “she’s there because she’s a black woman.”
Sort of like Kamala Harris. I can’t stand her, but at the same time, nobody really ever talks about her background or accomplishments (not that they are very impressive to begin with); she’s always thought of as “she’s the person who checked boxes for race and gender” which IS sad.
But hey, overt racism is okay in today’s Democrat party, just as long as it’s the “right” kind of racism.
Well to be fair, they are talking about Kamala's background and accomplishments. Unfortunately for her, it is her background and accomplishments in the bedroom.
So to all of you disgusted Biden identified race and gender already didn't object when Trump did the same thing -- gender only -- so is it the race thing that is triggering your objection because none of you complained when Trump very proudly stated he would choose a woman, not sure which one....but a woman.
I actually feel bad for whoever the nominee will be. Because she could have an absolutely impressive list of achievements and qualifications, but everyone will think of her as “she’s there because she’s a black woman.”
Sort of like Kamala Harris. I can’t stand her, but at the same time, nobody really ever talks about her background or accomplishments (not that they are very impressive to begin with); she’s always thought of as “she’s the person who checked boxes for race and gender” which IS sad.
But hey, overt racism is okay in today’s Democrat party, just as long as it’s the “right” kind of racism.
The breakdown and crying by whoever is in the minority is predictable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
